Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Jun 22;21(2):31.
doi: 10.5334/ijic.5588.

An Overview of Reviews on Interprofessional Collaboration in Primary Care: Effectiveness

Affiliations

An Overview of Reviews on Interprofessional Collaboration in Primary Care: Effectiveness

Tania Carron et al. Int J Integr Care. .

Abstract

Introduction: Interprofessional collaboration (IPC) is increasingly used but diversely implemented in primary care. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of IPC in primary care settings.

Methods: An overview (review of systematic reviews) was carried out. We searched nine databases and employed a double selection and data extraction method. Patient-related outcomes were categorized, and results coded as improvement (+), worsening (-), mixed results (?) or no change (0).

Results: 34 reviews were included. Six types of IPC were identified: IPC in primary care (large scope) (n = 8), physician-nurse in primary care (n = 1), primary care physician (PCP)-specialty care provider (n = 5), PCP-pharmacist (n = 3), PCP-mental healthcare provider (n = 15), and intersectoral collaboration (n = 2). In general, IPC in primary care was beneficial for patients with variation between types of IPC. Whereas reviews about IPC in primary care (large scope) showed better processes of care and higher patient satisfaction, other types of IPC reported mixed results for clinical outcomes, healthcare use and patient-reported outcomes. Also, reviews focusing on interventions based on pre-existing and well-defined models, such as collaborative care, overall reported more benefits. However, heterogeneity between the included primary studies hindered comparison and often led to the report of mixed results. Finally, professional- and organizational-related outcomes were under-reported, and cost-related outcomes showed some promising results for IPC based on pre-existing models; results were lacking for other types.

Conclusions: This overview suggests that interprofessional collaboration can be effective in primary care. Better understanding of the characteristics of IPC processes, their implementation, and the identification of effective elements, merits further attention.

Keywords: collaboration; effectiveness; interprofessional; overview; primary care; review.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have no competing interests to declare.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow chart.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Six types of interprofessional collaboration identified. Note: professionals working outside the primary care setting collaborate with at least a primary care physician and can include other primary care providers.

References

    1. Institute of Medicine. Committee on Quality of Health Care in America. Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century. National Academies Press. 2001.
    1. World Health Organization. Framework for action on interprofessional education & collaborative practice. 2010. - PubMed
    1. Way D, Jones L, Busing N. Implementation strategies: collaboration in primary care—family doctors & nurse practitioners delivering shared care. Toronto: Ontario College of family physicians. 2000; 8.
    1. Cramm JM, Nieboer AP. In the Netherlands, rich interaction among professionals conducting disease management led to better chronic care. Health Affairs. 2012; 31(11): 2493–500. DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.2011.1304 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Cramm JM, Nieboer AP. Relational coordination promotes quality of chronic care delivery in Dutch disease-management programs. Health care management review. 2012; 37(4): 301–9. DOI: 10.1097/HMR.0b013e3182355ea4 - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources